The cost of a small hatchback is in real terms now half what it was in the eighties; I teach students who drive cars, eat out regularly, buy throwaway fashion, binge drink at cheap pubs before going on to late-nighters at clubs, and have their hair dyed and tinted regularly. (Oh, and half of them cannot write grammatical English.)

All a sign of growing prosperity, perhaps? Or a sign of a weak economy which can only provide rubbish service sector jobs to half of the UK population ( - based on a poor educational system, about which the squandering quality 'agencies' crow, as they drain the public finances).

I suspect that back in 1971, many more people lived near enough to their place of work to walk or use public transport. As car ownership grew, so did the distance people were prepared to travel, until driving became the norm.

Just ask any school over 30 years old about the change in the proportion of pupils who now arrive by car.

There has been a flight to suburbia over recent years ( often illserved by amenities). Public transport is all that T'old Un points out. And the country is importing people too. And the quality of driving is appalling - aggression and down right ignorance being commonplace nowadays.

Cars are highly expensive to own and run - especially in depreciation in high cost UK. The higher the excise and insurance (linked to endorsements) the more we are inclined to use them in addition to their original purpose (commuting perhaps) in order to get value for money. So come the weekend out comes the car - ditto for shopping, breaks, doctor's visits, friends and relatives ...

In fact it would be madness not to utilise a car in favour of public transport when so much dead money is already wrapped up in them.

DBC you are correct on fewer/less and its/it's but while concentrating on the fine points of pendantry you have made an incorrect assumption.

Anonymous is always the same person lol.

English is not one of my strong points so I would never criticise others, especially on a blog where you don't know the other person and where English may be a second language.

If you assume something you make an ass of you and me - Ass-u-me lol

The original point is important because too many useful idiots think reducing speed limits and impeding cars are the best ways to reduce casualties and cut pollution. It is their pedantic adherence to their personal biases and incorrect assumptions which mean valuable resources are being squandered, simply serving as an inconvenience to many while failing to address almost all of the problems.

"Therefore they hould skew the tax system so people who choose to live near where they work get credit."

Yeah, that's what we need to do - f--- around with the tax system again. Anyway, if the thought of not having to sit in traffic for ages isn't enough of an incentive to get one to move closer to one's job, then I doubt some minor tax credit will be.

Wouldn't work for me - I've no incentive to move closer to my job as the company could well go tits up and I'd just have to move again.